The whole city celebrates when the godly succeed; they shout for joy when the wicked die.
Like most proof-texting, a single, solitary verse will do for their argument.
The aim of this short post is not to show him how wrong he is according to the entire witness of Scripture, including the Gospel, but to call attention to the fact that the use of this verse in context is wrong.
Simply, I note the next verse,
Upright citizens are good for a city and make it prosper, but the talk of the wicked tears it apart.
Taken together, the passage is dealing with the city, a city, during a time, perhaps, of war or oppression. So, if this is the case, why wouldn’t the Righteous want to see oppression cease? Further, K&D state,
The בּ of בּטוּב denotes the ground but not the object, as elsewhere, but the cause of the rejoicing, like the ב 10b, and in the similar proverb, Pro 29:2, cf. Pro 28:12. If it goes well with the righteous, the city has cause for joy, because it is for the advantage of the community; and if the wicked (godless) come to an end, then there is jubilation (substantival clause for תּרן), for although they are honoured in their lifetime, yet men breathe freer when the city is delivered from the tyranny and oppression which they exercised, and from the evil example which they gave. Such proverbs, in which the city (civitas) represents the state, the πόλις the πολιτεία, may, as Ewald thinks, be of earlier date than the days of an Asa or Jehoshaphat; for “from the days of Moses and Joshua to the days of David and Solomon, Israel was a great nation, divided indeed into many branches and sections, but bound together by covenant, whose life did not at all revolve around one great city alone.” We value such critical judgments according to great historical points of view, but confess not to understand why קריה must just be the chief city and may not be any city, and how on the whole a language which had not as yet framed the conception of the state (post-bibl. מדינה), when it would described the community individually and as a whole, could speak otherwise than of city and people.
This might match with the first chapter or two of the Wisdom of Solomon, but nevertheless, the context is still king.
So, unless Ken Pulliam was oppressing people and his death brought freedom to the city, then the context states that the anonymous commentator was proof-texting.
What is really interesting, however, above the discussion of context is the verse after this passage:
It is foolish to belittle one’s neighbor; a sensible person keeps quiet. (Pro 11:10-12 NLT)
Amazing… if only they had read but that statement… then maybe instead of belittling the departed, they would have simply kept quite, refusing to gloat when their enemy fell.